Future for Luke Ablett

[Robbo]

Showed promise earlier in his career bit has stagnated since the end of 06. Time to move him on, at this point having a stab in the dark at pick 55 is a better option.

[Armchair Coach]

What!

He was offered up for trade in trade week by virtue of no contract being offered before the week started, but he/we received no offers.

Hence he has remained on the list and we are now assessing whether we offer him a new contract or use pick 55 on a kid.

It baffles me how people on this site don't understand the rules regarding the draft or contract renewals. We have been up front with Ablett from the start, allowed him to continue to train with us, offered him as a trade and given due consideration as to whether we will offer him another deal without some knee jerk reaction and de-listing.

Saying all that, on basis that he can get the body right I would think a new contract offer for a year would be better for us at this stage than going with pick 55 in a weak draft, unless they have a mature age smookie they are keen on ala that Ranga from Western Victoria we had in 2005.

DST

I don't recall his name being thrown around during trade week at all(other than on here and BF). If so-who to? Sources?

Nothing to do with understanding rules regarding contracts etc. More to do with not understanding the clubs position when it comes to being patient with an Irishman who walked out on us (injury prone too I might add), or a hack from Geelong who couldn't cut it and can't wipe his nose without getting injured, over a premiership player who has at least given it a go, and can actually play very well when fully fit.

[ScottH]

Future for Luke Ablett ... bleak!

Surfers aint that bleak.

[bennyfabulous]

I dont subscribe to this weak draft crap, it takes a good 2 to 3 years in the system to develop players. Really does anyone think that it has never happened that a pick 55 has ended up better than a pick 25 on occassions.

There have been many picks around 55 and beyond that have been very successful.

[EMJ]

Where is the consideration being given to Ablett for Denghi? fever he had last year. Takes many months to recover. Lack of strength and ability is resultant from the fever. Not sure how long it take to recover.

Would like to see him stay with the Swans and would also like Kennelly to stay with us. Will be unhappy person if Kennelly goes to the Saints - they have gone quiet on that scenario lately.

[DST]

I don't recall his name being thrown around during trade week at all(other than on here and BF). If so-who to? Sources?

Nothing to do with understanding rules regarding contracts etc. More to do with not understanding the clubs position when it comes to being patient with an Irishman who walked out on us (injury prone too I might add), or a hack from Geelong who couldn't cut it and can't wipe his nose without getting injured, over a premiership player who has at least given it a go, and can actually play very well when fully fit.

Why do the football club need to relay onto the media (and us) every decision they have made and who they may be offering come trade week.

You don''t have to be a rockett scientest to work out that come trade week if the club has not put another offer to you then your time with the club is limited.

Ablett would have entered trade week knowing full well that he would either be traded or a decision would be made on a new contract before the ND.

And what does Kennelly have to do with any decision regarding Ablett being offered a new contract. Nothing what so ever.

I would take the punt and offer him a new one year contract rather than go with 5 picks in the draft but whether Kennelly returns or not has no bearing on the decision due to our ability to move Goodes or Kirk to outside the list and the room we have in the salary cap.

DST

[DST]

I dont subscribe to this weak draft crap, it takes a good 2 to 3 years in the system to develop players. Really does anyone think that it has never happened that a pick 55 has ended up better than a pick 25 on occassions.

There have been many picks around 55 and beyond that have been very successful.

In past years I would agree, but we have seen the AFL remove the ability for clubs to take one 17 year old player each and the GC17 have taken what they see as the 12 best 17 year old's this year.

In effect this years 55 is closer to pick 75, combine that with a weak pool and this year you will probably see only 68 picks max used at the ND draft.

That's got to be telling you something doesn't it?

DST

[Auntie.Gerald]

hhhhmmm

his depth will be handy if we suffer injuries week in week out but we are freeing up some cash to pre pay a few players so we can go hard again next year with another good trade we will be looking pretty good come 2011 with anotehr year under the belt of the merging players

[BSA5]

In past years I would agree, but we have seen the AFL remove the ability for clubs to take one 17 year old player each and the GC17 have taken what they see as the 12 best 17 year old's this year.

In effect this years 55 is closer to pick 75, combine that with a weak pool and this year you will probably see only 68 picks max used at the ND draft.

That's got to be telling you something doesn't it?

DST

Actually, from what I've gathered, this year it's less that the overall talent is less abundant, more than it's more evenly spread after the top 10 or so. There's still a lot of quality at the very top end, and a lot of potential value towards the back end. It's more the late first round/early second round picks whose values have decreased most.

But I could be wrong of course. Just what I've gathered.

[Armchair Coach]

Why do the football club need to relay onto the media (and us) every decision they have made and who they may be offering come trade week.

They don't. But trade week is typically a hotbed of discussion and transparency across the board doesn't hurt.

You don''t have to be a rockett scientest to work out that come trade week if the club has not put another offer to you then your time with the club is limited.

Arguable. There would have to have been discussions with him regarding his playing future. Ablett has trade value. His games this year were serviceable at best, compared to Buchanan (I don't recall him playing) who was looked after. At the end of the day, he's either a required player or he isn't.

Ablett would have entered trade week knowing full well that he would either be traded or a decision would be made on a new contract before the ND.

Maybe. If that was the case, then I think it shows great loyalty and diplomacy on his part not to have made statements to anyone otside of the club regarding a desire to be traded or whinging about a new contract. He's a good egg.

And what does Kennelly have to do with any decision regarding Ablett being offered a new contract. Nothing what so ever.

My point with Tadgh is that he informed the club of his decision to retire after the list had been finalised. Granted, he's not the first player to have done that (and won't be the last). But everyone knew what he was planning. He could have timed it better. Someone wasn't communicating properly. I don't blame him for wanting to fulfill his dream, or even if he doesn't want to return. But if the club are trying to juggle things around (ie trying to manage their list) in the hopes that he might come back...well that's not so good. I think the distinction I'm trying to make is that Ablett has shown greater loyalty than Tadgh.

I would take the punt and offer him a new one year contract rather than go with 5 picks in the draft but whether Kennelly returns or not has no bearing on the decision due to our ability to move Goodes or Kirk to outside the list and the room we have in the salary cap.

Agreed. I want the team to move forward, but it just doesn't sound like the club is doing the right thing by Ablett. And they should make that endeavour.

[caj23]

Maybe he was offered up for trade and nobody wanted him, not all players offered for trade are reported to the media, particlarly with low profile players like Ablett.

Nobody was willing to trade for his cousin Shane Tuck who is arguably a superior player to Luke.

I would suggest that his trade value would be close to zero

Just my speculation though

[Plugger46]

My point with Tadhg is that he informed the club of his decision to retire after the list had been finalised. Granted, he's not the first player to have done that (and won't be the last). But everyone knew what he was planning. He could have timed it better. Someone wasn't communicating properly. I don't blame him for wanting to fulfill his dream, or even if he doesn't want to return. But if the club are trying to juggle things around (ie trying to manage their list) in the hopes that he might come back...well that's not so good. I think the distinction I'm trying to make is that Ablett has shown greater loyalty than Tadhg.

Couldn't have been avoided - same with Fosdike. My understanding is that we would have been over the salary cap, if they'd announced their retirements prior to the list being finalised.
I suspect the club knew what Kennelly was planning long before it was made public.